babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » archived babble   » the middle east and central asia   » 1939 or 1956?

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: 1939 or 1956?
Whazzup?
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1471

posted 26 February 2003 05:16 PM      Profile for Whazzup?     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
War in Iraq, that is.

I really liked this piece in the Guardian, in which a dozen historians consider the historical parallels often trotted out. Lots of unusual insights, unexpected connections that you don't find in most journalism.

Click.

I'm surprised that no one brought up the 1935 "Peace Bond," where Brits overwhelmingly voted "against war and fascism."

[ 26 February 2003: Message edited by: Whazzup? ]


From: Under the Rubble | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 26 February 2003 05:22 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
More like 1914 to me. Not in the length of the war itself, but in the possible repercussions.
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
drgoodword
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3214

posted 27 February 2003 06:30 AM      Profile for drgoodword   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
More like 1914 to me. Not in the length of the war itself, but in the possible repercussions.

This is an often overlooked but telling analogy. Austro-Hungary gave a list of demands to Serbia, following the assasination of Franz Ferdinand, designed to be impossible to fulfill, and thus act as a surefire trigger for war.

That some people at this board and elsewhere seem to believe the U.S. administration's line about Hussein now being a threat that must be forcefully dealt with--when he's been successfully contained for 12 years without major incident--is baffling.

I have come to believe that one of the biggest factors influencing what support there is for this war in the U.S., and to a lesser, Canada, is that fully two generations have grown up without experiencing the totality of war, and I include the generation of Vietnam. War has become too abstract for the citizens of the North American continent, and they cannot grasp the true horror of what the U.S. government is about to unleash upon the people of Iraq.

War is sometimes truly unavoidable, but that is rarely the case, and certainly nowhere near the case with Iraq, a country whose annual military spending is 0.6% that of the nation preparing to crush it, the U.S.

Containment has worked for 12 years; the Iraqi army is a fraction of its power prior to the Gulf war, where it was routed with near-record speed. There is absolutely nothing to justify a war today on Iraq, and doing so will destroy the fragile and hard-won rule of international law built after WWII.

It is no wonder that the greatest opposition to the Iraq war, in America, is found amongst the "greatest generation"...those people who actually lived through the desolation of the Second World War, and still have a vivid memory of the hell of war.

I have always set forth this challenge to those who support the military destruction of Iraq: spend a week in your nearest intensive care burn unit, and then say whether you are ready to put thousands through that kind of pain with your tax dollars and political support. I believe close contact with genuine extreme physical trauma would have a highly sobering and pacific effect on the armchair video-warriors cheering this war.

drg


From: Toronto | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Barry Stagg
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3814

posted 02 March 2003 12:14 AM      Profile for Barry Stagg   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Too bad,so sad: The incredible Saddam Hussein liberal apologia brigade is touting the nauseating 'containment' as a permanent solution to a mustard gas gangster who needs no help from American weaponry to keep a trauma unit full and working to capacity to treat his thousands of victims.

September 11, 2001 has mobilized a powerful country to act, selectively as it turns out, but act it will, with the restraint and humanity that the apologists ascribe to themselves and which they require not from the Butcher of Baghdad.


From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Willowdale Wizard
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3674

posted 02 March 2003 12:45 AM      Profile for Willowdale Wizard   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
September 11, 2001 has mobilized a powerful country to act, selectively as it turns out, but act it will, with the restraint and humanity that the apologists ascribe to themselves

if post-11th September intervention has been selective (afghanistan, pakistan, yemen, djibouti, special forces in columbia, construction of bases in uzbehkistan, kyrgyzstan), i'd hate to see something drastic. and we'll check back a few months from now to see if a country with B2 bombers, depleted uranium and microwave weapons, and 6 aircraft carriers in the gulf will act with "restraint and humanity".


From: england (hometown of toronto) | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Zatamon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1394

posted 02 March 2003 12:46 AM      Profile for Zatamon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
BS: September 11, 2001 has mobilized a powerful country to act, selectively as it turns out, but act it will, with the restraint and humanity that the apologists ascribe to themselves and which they require not from the Butcher of Baghdad.
It's amazing how some people can actually turn themselves into loudspeakers every evening, regurgitating newspaper headlines they were fed during the day. As if there was a total vacuum between the eyes and the mouth. It's an interesting psychological phenomenon, worth studying.

[ 02 March 2003: Message edited by: Zatamon ]


From: where hope for 'hope' is contemplated | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
verbatim
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 569

posted 02 March 2003 12:50 AM      Profile for verbatim   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Hey BS: The National Post Columnist auditions were last weekend. Sorry.
From: The People's Republic of Cook Street | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Barry Stagg
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3814

posted 02 March 2003 10:09 AM      Profile for Barry Stagg   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
When will "They had it coming" be trotted out to damn the Americans and thoroughly trounce any of the unbelievers who persist in supporting this great country?
From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Zatamon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1394

posted 02 March 2003 10:33 AM      Profile for Zatamon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
BS: BS
BS

From: where hope for 'hope' is contemplated | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 02 March 2003 12:07 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Whazzup?, I've just finished reading your collection of historians, and thank you for that rich source. They all have something to add that I hadn't thought of, so I'd advise babblers to read them all. I was especially impressed by Simon Schama, who summarizes so elegantly, and by Richard Evans, but really, I wouldn't miss a one.

Suez is such a British reference, isn't it? I mean, I know there's an important Canadian connection, but I wonder whether any pundit in North America ever would have raised that parallel.

Almost all of those historians dismiss the "appeasement" parallel on the grounds that I think are obvious too. Look at a map of Iraq, showing the no-fly zones, and then tell me that that is Hitler's Germany, preparing to conquer Europe in 1939-40. As a metaphor, 1939 is pretty pathetic, I think.

It is fair to wonder, maybe, about the differences that different technologies mean in these situations. Does one have to be Hitler, eg, nowadays, to pose the same kind of international threat? Osama raises that question. I'm not sure that I think that Saddam does. (Which one of those guys calls Osama the Capitalist of Terror? Great image there.)

Because I keep fretting over the UN, which
should work, I feel, must work one day, the historical parallel that keeps coming back to me is 1950 (?) -- Korea -- the trick vote in the UN, manoeuvred by the U.S. in the Soviet Union's absence, a "UN" force invented as a veil for a U.S. war. That's what I keep remembering.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
John Collins
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3199

posted 02 March 2003 01:59 PM      Profile for John Collins     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I keep fretting over the UN, which
should work

I have to wonder how well it was ever intended to work -- the existence of the five permanent Security Council seats (and their power of veto) is the single most limiting constraint to effective U.N. action, IMHO. Until the rest of the world is trusted enough by the 'Great Powers' to be full members of the Club, I'm not certain that tne U.N. can really fulfill the role expressed in its' charter.


From: Ottawa | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca